The Influence of the Rhode Island Coverts Project: Five ...cels.uri.edu/docslink/forestry/Birmingham...

The Influence of the Rhode Island Coverts

Project: Five Case Studies of Forest Management

by Landowners

Danielle Birmingham

University of Rhode Island

Department of Natural Resources Science

May 2012

This research was conducted as part of a University of Rhode Island project entitled "Forest

Management for Wildlife Habitat in Rhode Island" with funding from the University of Rhode

Island and the United States Department of Agriculture through a McIntire-Stennis Cooperative

Research Grant. Project partners include the Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management, the Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station and the Natural Resources

Conservation Service. A longer version of this paper was submitted to the University of Rhode

Island in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Environmental Science

and Management (MESM).

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Dr. Scott McWilliams and Dr.

Bill Buffum of the University of Rhode Island, who advised during the planning and

implementation of this study, and also Mr. Chris Modisette and Mr. Paul Boisvert of the Natural

Resources Conservation Service, who provided valuable inputs.

Suggested citation: Birmingham, D. 2012. The Influence of the Rhode Island Coverts Project:

Five Case Studies of Forest Management by Landowners. Kingston, Rhode Island: Department of

Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island.

The Influence of the Rhode Island Coverts Project: Five Case Studies

Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2

2. Materials and Methods ................................................................................................ 4

3. Results ......................................................................................................................... 5

Participant 1 .................................................................................................................... 5

Participant 2 .................................................................................................................... 8

Participant 3 .................................................................................................................. 11

Participant 4 .................................................................................................................. 14

Participant 5 .................................................................................................................. 16

4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 18

5. References ................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix I. Scientific Names of Species Mentioned ....................................................... 22

Appendix II. Questions asked during interviews .............................................................. 24

Appendix III. Photographs of Participants’ Properties ..................................................... 26

The Influence of the Rhode Island Coverts Project: Five Case Studies page 1

Summary

This report depicts the findings of five in-depth interviews involving past participants of the

Rhode Island Coverts Project. This study followed up on a 2011 study conducted by URI and the

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to evaluate the types of outreach and

technical/financial support needed to motivate private landowners to implement land

management activities on their own property (Buffum and Modisette 2011). The objectives of

the current study were to describe how the Coverts Project has influenced private landowners to

implement land management practices; how financial/technical support determined specific

management decisions; how practices were implemented; the effects of management activities

on the property and wildlife habitat; and the overall Coverts program and land management

activities experience. The five participants differed in specific land management practices and

how these activities were implemented, which is mostly due to varying management goals.

However, 100% of the participants witnessed improved and increased wildlife habitats. Only two

of the participants performed substantial clear cuts, but all five implemented forest thinning. It

appears that significant clear cuts produce instantaneous improvements on wildlife habitat while

thinned areas generate habitat improvements one to three years later. All of the participants also

actively spread the word about the benefits of land management in improving wildlife habitat at

work or at other environmental programs. The RI Coverts Project has clearly been influential in

motivating private landowners to practice forest management activities with the objective of

improving and expanding wildlife habitat.

Acronyms

All-Terrain Vehicles ATV

Conservation Stewardship Program CSP

Early Successional Habitat ESH

Environmental Quality Incentives Program EQIP

Forest Management Plan FMP

Institutional Review Board IRB

Natural Resources Conservation Service NRCS

Northeast Organic Farming Association NOFA

Northern Rhode Island Conservation District NRICD

Rhode Island Association of Conservation Commissions RIACC

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management RIDEM

Rhode Island Forest Conservator’s Organization RIFCO

Rhode Island Natural History Survey RINHS

Rhode Island Resource Conservation & Development Area Council RIRC&D

Ruffed Grouse Society RGS

The Nature Conservancy TNC

Timber Stand Improvement TSI

United States Department of Agriculture USDA

University of Rhode Island URI

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program WHIP

Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association WPWA


1. Introduction

Forest fragmentation can be described as dividing up large, continuous forests into smaller

blocks of forest by building roads, commercial or residential infrastructure, clearing land for

agriculture, and other human activities. Forest fragmentation can have serious, detrimental

effects on biodiversity, carbon storage, water quality, nitrogen cycles, and overall sustainability

(Riitters et al. 2002). There is approximately 2,500,000 square kilometers of forest in the

conterminous United States; however, most of this forest is in danger of alteration by human

land-use activities. For example, the rate of landscape change of privately owned forest area

surpassed 3% in 25 states and 10% in five states between 1982 and 1997. Also, approximately

40,000 square kilometers of privately owned forest were lost to urbanization along the east coast

in the recent past (Riitters et al. 2002).

As the smallest state in the United States, Rhode Island has a land total of approximately 668,800

acres. According to a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service forest

inventory performed in 1998, there is approximately 393,000 acres of forest in Rhode Island

(Widmann 2002). Remarkably, 59% of the Rhode Island land surface is covered with forest.

However, this was not always the case. Rhode Island’s early settlers cleared roughly two-thirds

of the original forest for agricultural purposes. Farmers began to abandon their farms in the late

19th

century and move west. The farmland regenerated naturally into forests and forest

abundance increased until the 1950s when it started to decline (Widmann 2002). This led to the

problem of extreme reduction of early successional habitat in Rhode Island.

Early successional habitats (ESH) are characterized by young stages of forest growth and shrub-

domination (Dessecker and McAuley 2001, Gobster 2001). This may include grasses, forbs, or

shrubs like tallgrass prairie or alder thickets; aspen saplings; and sparse overstory trees like oak

or pine (Gobster 2001). Early successional landscapes are created through periodic natural or

man-made disturbances such as fire, flooding, and clear cuts (Gobster 2001). These habitats

provide protection and food sources due to their high stem densities to early successional species

such as ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and New England cottontail (Dessecker 2001)1. All

three of these species historically occupied Rhode Island, but the ESH in the state has declined

dramatically over the past 60 years. Due to the reduction in natural and man-made disturbances

and decreased timber harvesting, ESH has dropped from 42% in the 1950s to 6% in 1998 (Trani

et al. 2001). Ruffed grouse numbers have declined from six grouse harvested per hunting trip in

1964 to only one harvested per hunting trip in 1998 (Endrulat et al. 2005). American woodcock

populations have decreased by 40% over the last 30 years (Dessecker 2001).

Since much of the forested land in the United States falls within privately owned property,

outreach must be developed to educate these private landowners on the benefits of forest

management. In 1983, the Ruffed Grouse Society (RGS) along with Extension Services in

Connecticut and Vermont created the Coverts Project (RGS 2012). The word covert describes a

thicket that provides shelter cover for wildlife. The goals of this initiative are to educate private

woodland owners how sound forest management practices can make wildlife healthier, more

1 Scientific names can be found in Appendix I


diverse, and more plentiful through enhanced wildlife habitats (RIRC&D 2012). The focus is on

forest ecology and stewardship, wildlife management and land conservation. The Coverts Project

has since been developed in 14 states in the East and Midwest, including Rhode Island (RGS

2012). Approximately 1,770 participants who own or manage 1,900,000 acres have been trained

from 1984 to 1998 in the various states. The Project won a National Natural Resources &

Environmental Management award in 1997 (RGS 2012).

Rhode Island’s 393,000 acres of forest are owned by roughly 26,700 private landowners

(RIRC&D 2012). Most of these individuals own 50 acres or less, which are highly fragmented

and disrupted for wildlife habitat. This issue led the Rhode Island Resource Conservation &

Development Area Council (RIRC&D) along with the University of Rhode Island (URI), Rhode

Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), RGS, and the Rhode Island Forest

Conservator’s Organization (RIFCO) to establish a Coverts Project in 2006. The first Coverts

Project Cooperators class was trained in 2008 at the URI W. Alton Jones campus in West

Greenwich, RI. The Project has since trained 57 landowners in its four years of existence who

own and manage 1,771 acres in RI (RIRC&D 2012).

In 2011, URI and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conducted a survey to

determine lessons learned by private landowners who have attended the Coverts Program, and to

evaluate the types of outreach and technical/financial support needed to motivate private

landowners to implement land management activities on their own property (Buffum and

Modisette 2011). Surveys were sent out to all 49 households that have participated in the Coverts

Project since 2008, and the response rate was 65%. The results of the survey reflect the

successfulness of the Coverts program to motivate landowners to implement forestry/wildlife

habitat practices. For example, 80% of the participants had performed some sort of management

activity on their property, most commonly creating forest openings. Also, 70% of the participants

had noticed recognizable differences on wildlife habitat with populations of birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians, insects, and flora. Importantly, 31% of the respondents stated that they

would not have implemented land management activities if they had not attended the Coverts

program (Buffum and Modisette 2011). Overall, the results of their study show the RI Coverts

Project to be making significant contributions in motivating private landowners to improve

wildlife habitat on their property.

The purpose of this study was to follow up on the URI-NRCS study and take a closer look at the

influences of the RI Coverts Project on the land management activities of several private

landowners. Five in-depth case studies were developed from five interviews of past Coverts

participants. The interviews included a tour of the participant’s property. The participants and

short descriptions of each can be seen in Table 1. The case studies attempted to determine how

the Coverts Project had influenced the specific land management activities implemented by the

participant; how financial/technical support influenced management decisions; how practices

were implemented; the effects of the land management practices on the property; and the overall

experience with the Coverts program and the forestry/wildlife habitat activities.


Table 1. Project Participants

Participant Coverts

Training Town Acreage

Participant 1 2009 Westerly 4 Participant 2 2008 West Greenwich 13 Participant 3 2008 Foster 23 Participant 4 2008 Foster 48 Participant 5 2010 Richmond 168

Figure 1. Map of Participant’s Properties

This figure represents where the participants’ properties are located in RI (north to south).

Yellow = Participant 4

Green = Participant 3

Red = Participant 2

Purple = Participant 5

Blue = Participant 1

2. Materials and Methods

Since this research project involved questioning human subjects, the first step was to obtain

Institutional Review Board (IRB) on Human Subjects approval. The IRB determines if research

proposals involving human subjects follow the ethical principles for the protection of human


subjects. IRB approval is required by federal and URI regulations. Since my research project was

an extension of the URI-NRCS study, for which IRB approval had already been obtained, I only

had to amend several of the proposal documents without submitting my own. I had to complete

the IRB Amendment Request Form and amend the original IRB application to include my

information and details of my study. I also amended the research proposal to include the details

and timeline of my study, and the questionnaire to include the questions I asked. I completed

online tutorials and took several online quizzes, and gained my IRB approval on 1 October 2011.

The next step was to choose the Coverts participants to interview. The first stipulation was

whether or not the participants were willing to answer additional questions, which was the last

question on URI-NRCS survey. 24 of the survey participants agreed to answer additional

questions. Therefore, I started by examining the surveys of the participants who answered yes to

this question. My decision was heavily influenced by the answers to the survey; I wanted to

choose participants who had already implemented land management practices on their property.

Several of the survey responses were from participants who had just attended the Coverts

program in April of 2011 and had not yet began management. I also wanted to choose one

participant from each acreage category on the URI-NRCS survey; 1-9 acres, 10-49 acres, 50-99

acres, 100 or more acres. I did not choose a participant in the 50-99 acres category, but was very

close with Participant 4 who owns 48 acres. I also received recommendations from my advisors,

Dr. Scott McWilliams, Dr. Bill Buffum, and Chris Modisette, on the best participants to choose.

I began my interviews and property tours in October of 2011 and finished in late November. I

spent approximately two hours at each participant’s property. The visit generally included the

interview session inside the participant’s house then a tour of the property. Before the start of the

interview, I told the participants that they did not have to answer any question they did not feel

comfortable answering. I asked approximately 35 questions to each participant2.

3. Results

Participant 1

I interviewed and toured the property of Participant 1 in Westerly, Rhode Island on 18 November

2011. The participant is originally from Connecticut, but has lived in Massachusetts and Virginia

before settling in Rhode Island. She and her family have lived at the current property for eight

years. Historically, the land was originally used for agricultural purposes and there are stone

walls present on her parcel.

She has ample background in biology and environmental stewardship. She has a Master of

Science in biology, works as an educator in Westerly, RI, and considers herself to be a

horticulturist. She participates in multiple “environmental-action” programs such as the Wild

Plant Society, the BioBlitz sponsored by the Rhode Island Natural History Survey (RINHS), and

Native Plant Workshops hosted by the Westerly Land Trust. As a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

volunteer, she participated in "Exploring Rhode Island’s Refuges" in Charlestown, RI. She is

2 See Appendix II for list of interview questions


also a certified gardener under the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA). She is very

enthusiastic about environmental conservation and land management.

Her forest is unique in terms of land management. First of all, it is a very small parcel of only

four acres situated in the middle of Westerly and connected to their residence by a small access

trail in the southeastern corner of their backyard. The family has considered selling the property

to the Westerly Land Trust and taking on the role of caretakers, but has not made a decision

about this. She has been managing the parcel since 2005.

The four acres is primarily wetland. There is a raised berm that runs through the parcel, and there

are two existing seasonal vernal pools. The lot is a partially closed deciduous hardwood forest

best characterized as a forest swamp with minimal upland. The land surface is characterized by

irregular mounds and depressions. The dominant tree species are red maple and green ash, but

there is also a small grove of walnuts, American elm, oak, and aspen present. There are several

silver maples on the property that she has planted. There are also multiple Norway maples that

she is in the process of eradicating. Most of the trees are mature. There is a great deal of

understory occupied by arrowwood, red twig dogwood, bramble, small elm, cherry, moss, skunk

cabbage, ferns, jack-in-the-pulpit, highbush blueberry, elderberry, winterberry, and jewelweed.

There are quite a few invasive species found on the property such as bittersweet, barberry,

wintercreeper euonymus, and porcelain-berry vine that grow up trees. There is also multiflora

rose, which may have been planted as living farm fences on agricultural land in the past. She

believes the invasive species are so abundant due to the fact that the soil is tinsberry loam and the

invasives are easily able to adapt to this organic soil.

Although it is a small area, there are many wildlife species that use her property. She has seen

gray squirrel, raccoon, wild turkey, and fisher, some instances of waterfowl, red-tailed hawk,

songbirds, coyote, opossum, woodchuck, and skunk. White-tailed deer are able to get through the

corridor that connects her backyard to the parcel. She has also seen wood frog in the vernal

pools. There are multiple forest features that provide wildlife habitat, like downed trees and

limbs, standing dead trees, and live cavity and den trees. There are also berry patches, food-

producing shrubs, brier patches and other thickets, and edge habitat.

She has many goals for the management of her land. First off, she wants to remove all invasives,

including the Norway maples. She wants to support the regeneration of the native species present

and to maintain the species that are already there. She would also like to secure the perimeter of

her lot, and she will attempt this by planting conifers along the edges. She would like to provide

for the return of the amphibian populations, and to increase the number of birds present. She

would also like to use her land as a model to encourage other landowners to participate in land

management. She believes in land management because she likes to use her property for

observing wildlife, and identifying plant and animal species. She likes to bird-watch and walk

around the parcel. Her children also use the area for play.

After attending the Coverts training in 2009, she created her own forest management plan, but

she did not qualify for a NRCS plan because of her low acreage. However, NRCS was able to

help her create a conservation plan under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).

Therefore, she was able to receive some NRCS reimbursement for building pollinator boxes on


her property, managing the invasive species, and planting hedgerows because these activities all

enhance wildlife habitat. She stated that she has received a couple thousand dollars through

NRCS reimbursement. She also said that she has spent approximately $1,000 of her own money

on her land management practices, but the biggest cost has been the time and effort required. She

has built pollinator boxes over the past couple years, and has planted ironweed and red mulberry

around them because the bees favor these plants.

She stated on the URI-NRCS survey that she had executed a one acre clear cut on her land;

however, upon my inspection no clear cut was found. She believes that a clear cut would

negatively impact her land because the parcel is just too small. However, she has done some

thinning and girdling of the trees, like the Norway maples. She has done all of this work on her

own with the help of her family with their own personal log-splitter. She believes this has

worked because more light is let into the lot and now the shrubs are able to flower. She has

attempted management on the wetland areas of the parcel. She explained that she tries to do the

wetland management during the off-season, like early spring and late fall, because she has to be

careful of mosquitoes. She does believe that the wetland management is more difficult than the

management of drier areas. However, she said there were less invasive species present in the

wetland areas and the removal of invasives is the most difficult aspect of management; therefore,

it evens out. She retained most of the slash produced from the management practices, but also

burned some of it. She does not sell the timber or any other products from their land, but the

family personally uses the wood. She expressed that she was never interested in earning income

from products derived from her land.

She reported that it took between two and three years to notice any recognizable differences on

her parcel after implementing the land management practices. She has noticed more sedge

species present and more areas of water. She explained that many species were present, but

dormant because they were being outcompeted by the invasive species. Once she removed many

areas of invasives, the dormant species were able to rebound. She believes that the wildlife

habitat has definitely improved. She has seen more hawks and woodpeckers than ever, and she

has heard frogs, which she had never heard before her land management activities. However, she

has seen a reduction in the population of raccoons because she removed patches of brier and

multiflora rose. She considers the retention of slash to be beneficial, and she thinks dead trees are

incredibly valuable to wildlife habitat.

The most helpful aspect of Coverts was the motivation she received from meeting other

landowners with the same passion as her for land management. She also said that Coverts help to

put her in contact with many resources needed to implement her land management practices. She

learned that there are many practical activities that one can implement for little time and money

that will benefit the land. She believes it is a great idea to open up the Coverts program to

landowners with smaller parcels because these areas represent the more typical private

landowners of Rhode Island. She found the specificity to woodcock habitat to be the least helpful

aspect of Coverts because this habitat type does not apply to her. She thought the program should

be broader when it comes to different wildlife habitats.

Although she has had great results from her forest management practices, she has encountered

some challenges, as well. She has received some negative feedback from her next-door neighbor


whose property bounds the forested parcel to the west. Her neighbor does not have sympathy for

wildlife, and has actually gone into her property and cut down some of her trees. She has also

seen the presence of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) activity on the parcel, which is most likely due to

the fact that there is a large rip in the fencing that surrounds the four acres. It goes without saying

that none of her neighbors have shown an interest in land management. However, she still tries to

spread the word about the benefits of land management activities at work, and she brings anyone

interested to her property to promote healthy land management. She thinks it is important to

physically get people out on her property to see the birds, wildlife, and native species, and just

the beauty of nature. She stated that many people simply do not know how to go about land

management, and by sharing her story, she is able to remove some of their fears of the unknown.

She also tells people to beware of over-management.

She explained that the most difficult aspect of implementing land management applications was

the removal of the invasive species. The invasives will return season after season even after

removal. The invasive species are much more powerful and damaging than the natives; therefore,

it is important to remove as many as possible. She thought the groundcover and vine species

were the most difficult to remove. On the other hand, she has had a very rewarding experience

while administering forest management. She has been rewarded by experiencing how the web of

life can come back and how quickly it can rebound. An example of this that she explained was

that there was much defoliation this spring caused by an inch worm species, but the red-winged

blackbird and the cedar waxwing will eat the inch worm allowing the trees to re-foliate. She

enjoys watching nature work itself out and the circle of life present on her property. She is also

rewarded by the fact that she can give wildlife a small refuge3.

Participant 2

I interviewed and visited the property of Participant 2 in West Greenwich, Rhode Island on 30

November 2011. The family bought the property in 1999 and has lived there since. Their parcel

of land is approximately 13 acres, which he plans to keep in the family for future generations to

enjoy. The family enjoys many activities on their property, such as observing wildlife, passive

recreation, and hiking. The parcel is also situated within a few miles from Tillinghast Pond,

Arcadia Management Area, and the URI W. Alton Jones campus. The property is within the

borderlands of Rhode Island and Connecticut, as well.

He has great experience working in environmental and preservation situations, although his

educational background is not in biology or environmental science. He worked for State Parks

for many years, and served on the West Greenwich Land Trust. The family also participates in

local 4H Programs and the RI Invasive Species Council. They worked on invasive removal from

Arcadia Management Area and Snake Den State Park. He is also a representative for the

Tillinghast Pond Management Area, which is a 1,600 acre area managed by the town of West

Greenwich, TNC, and the RIDEM. He gave a presentation at last year’s Coverts program

concerning his land management practices.

3 See Appendix III. Photographs of Participants’ Properties


He stated that there are no wetland areas on his property. The majority of the lot is woodlands

besides the area where the house is situated and a small field. This parcel is located within the

Penny Hill area of Kent County, RI; therefore, his property is extremely hilly and his backyard is

on a downhill slope. He explained that there was a fire in the 1950s that swept over this area;

consequently, there are not many large trees on his property. The property is mainly scrub-shrub

woodlands with immature maple, aspen, pine, and oak. There are no known invasive species on

his land. However, in the past, he purchased and planted burning bush from Home Depot, but

removed it once he learned that this is an invasive species.

He has opened a small field, but has not observed any instances of woodcock use. He has,

however, seen New England cottontail on his property. His patches of ESH are not substantial

and do not total more than five acres. Other species that use the parcel are white-tailed deer, wild

turkey, mouse, vole, gray squirrel, fisher, coyote, turkey vulture, bat, black snake, owl, and red-

tailed hawk. He built bird and bat boxes and situated them on the tallest trees on his property. He

has also created brush piles from his slash retention to enhance wildlife habitat. The family also

owns two llamas and two alpacas, one goat, and several Easter egg chickens, which live in a pen

he built in their backyard.

He developed a Forest Management Plan (FMP) under the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP) through NRCS. Marc Tremblay, a private forester, helped to develop the FMP,

which the participant said took a few months to complete. Marc Tremblay visited the property

several times and spent most of his time marking the trees to be cut down. Under EQIP, he is

required to track the status of the wildlife that occupies their parcel. Their FMP also required

them to build a recreational trail through the property, weeding and thinning, and enhance

wildlife habitat through brush piles and bird and bat boxes. He spent $650 of his own money on

the establishment of his FMP. He also spent $450 on the Timber Stand Improvement (TSI).

However, he has received reimbursement from NRCS. NRCS reimbursed him for the TSI and

paid $572 for the timber marking that was done by Mr. Tremblay. He has yet to be reimbursed

for his weeding and thinning efforts because he has not yet completed this requirement. He stated

that he has received a total of $2,000 in NRCS reimbursements and has spent a total of $9,600 of

his own money on his land management practices. He explained that much of the money he has

spent has gone towards expensive equipment.

Other than the forestry help from Marc Tremblay, the participant and his family have performed

all the management tasks on their own. He decided not to hire a logger because he did not think

it would be worth the cost. He stated that if his family owned 100 acres or more then he may

have thought about the situation differently. He did not want the heavy machinery marks of

logging equipment on his land and he believes it leaves a smaller carbon footprint on his land if

he does the management on his own. He also enjoys the exercise. He uses a chainsaw to cut

down most of the trees, and uses an ATV and a wagon suitable for heavy hauling to transport the

slash around his property. He follows the plan laid out by Marc Tremblay and cuts down all trees

that Marc marked with a blue dot. He owns a log-splitter that he has found to be extremely

helpful. One challenge that he met was the fact that there was gravel and loam spread all over his

property since he moved in. He was forced to try and clean this up as much as possible. He

completed the management practices to the northern side of the road that runs through his

property in 2008 and the southern side of the road in 2011. He is now working on areas on the


western edge of his property. He has not done any sizeable clear cuts on his property, but he did

create a small clear cut to enhance his view corridor of the Connecticut border. He also has a

small field on the property. He believes he is approximately three-quarters of his way through his

FMP requirements.

He originally became interested in land management from the post cards they received from

NRCS promoting different management workshops. He stated that they have been interested in

management since 2007. The family initially heard about the Coverts program from Paul

Boisvert who reached out through RIFCO to private landowners with ten or more acres. He

believes Coverts helped his situation immensely. He said he certainly needed more education on

land management practices before attending Coverts in 2008. He considers his property to now

be in a much better condition for the next 20 to 30 years, and he feels that he is much more in

tune with wildlife. He reported that it took about a year to notice any recognizable differences on

his property after his forest management implementation. He believes that the wildlife habitat on

his land definitely improved. He has seen an increase in the number of bats, hawk, and deer. He

thinks the brush piles and boxes were the most helpful to the enhancement of wildlife habitat. He

retained all the slash on his property; however, he stated that this did not cause any significant

differences to habitat.

Perhaps one of the most attractive aspects of land management is the ability to earn income off

of products obtained from one’s property. The participant stated on the URI-NRCS survey that

he was very interested in earning income from his land and he has been able to accomplish this.

He sells firewood from timber he has cut down for $175 per cord. Last year he sold the firewood

for $125 per cord and made a total of $800, so this year he is experimenting with a price

increase. He also sold pole logs, and earned $450 for six pole log cords last year. He bought his

log-splitter to help with this work, which he was initially doing by hand. Although his family

does not sell this product, they also grow shiitake mushrooms on the property. They usually have

two to three harvests a year that yield approximately ten pounds of mushrooms per harvest. The

family does not try to sell the shiitake mushrooms because they cannot provide the product on a

regular basis. The growth of the mushrooms cannot be forced and it is a fairly slow process. The

family does use the mushrooms for their own personal enjoyment though. He is also

experimenting with growing Christmas trees on his land now.

He had a very positive experience with the Coverts program. He found Coverts to be most

helpful in the fact that it was very informative and comprehensive. He also liked how reference

manuals and materials were provided so he could look back onto anything, if need be. He has

also attended several of the follow-up workshops, which he found to be beneficial. He valued

visiting other participant’s properties for real-life examples and meeting people with the same

interests as him. He appreciated how the material at the Coverts workshop was presented by

several speakers from different disciplines. He also enjoys giving the presentations based on his

own experiences with forest management. He stated that none of the aspects of Coverts were

unconstructive for him. He did not think the program was too specific concerning the woodcock

and ESH.

Luckily, he has not received any negative feedback from his neighbors. He likes to let them

know when he will be using a chainsaw or any other noisy equipment ahead of time. However,


his neighbors have shown little interest in implementing land management practices on their own

land, but he believes this is due to the fact that their lots are just too small. Nevertheless, several

of his neighbors have attended management workshops that have been hosted on his property.

He helps to spread the word about the benefits of land management through his position in his

local Land Trust. He suggests that Coverts recruiters examine an inventory of landowners with

significant parcels and send out post cards to all of them. He believes that landowners need to

learn that they can receive a tax cut for management on parcels of ten or more acres. Also,

people need to be educated on the fact that the land can be managed for the future generations’

enjoyment and benefit.

He did encounter some challenges in his applications of land management activities. One of the

most difficult factors was harvesting the wood and slash since he did this all on his own. He also

said it was difficult finding the time and motivation to actually do the work. This has become

much easier for him since his retirement. Overall, he has had a more rewarding experience with

forest management implementation than a difficult one. One of the most rewarding aspects for

him was to be working out in the woods and in nature every day, even in the winter. He also

liked not having to answer to anyone; he was his own boss in terms of implementing the

management activities. He has also been rewarded by the results of his practices and seeing that

management can really work to improve and expand wildlife habitat.

Participant 3

I interviewed and visited the property of Participant 3 in Foster, Rhode Island on 19 November

2011. He bought the 23 acre property approximately six months ago. The property has

considerable historical significance; the parcel was once agricultural land and there are two stone

walls present on the length of the property to the west. There is also a seasonal stream in this area

of the property. After farming ceased on this land, a small-scale charcoal manufacturing

operation was established. He stated that this occurred approximately 50 years ago, but he still

finds charcoal residue piles scattered throughout the property. There was a saw mill on the

property in the recent past in which some logging took place. The previous owner of the property

practiced maple sugaring and there is a small sugar shack on the lot. The lot is also a certified

tree farm. He plans to keep the property in the family and have considered making it a non-

developable parcel.

A notably unique aspect of his house and property is that they run completely off solar energy,

and are off the grid from the main transmission of electricity. He said he has always had an

interest in solar energy and alternative forms of energy. The fact that the house has southern

exposure was one of the main reasons why the family bought it because they needed this to

implement their solar energy system. They are in the process of building a passive solar sunroom

on the back of their house. He has also contemplated some sort of wind energy system for his

property.

He does not have a background in biology or environmental science, but has a strong interest in

land management. He has his fair share of experience in “environmental-action” programs and is

highly involved with the South County Rod and Gun Club. The Rod and Gun Club is

approximately 475 acres in West Greenwich, RI with rifle and pistol ranges, shooting fields, a


fishing pond, and an archery area. He serves on the Forest Stewardship Committee of the Gun

Club, and he originally created this committee board because he knew the Gun Club needed to

start conservation and forest management practices. He convinced the Gun Club to begin

management and they received $123,000 in NRCS funding. After attending Coverts, he began to

implement invasive plant management on the Gun Club’s land. There is a high degree of

invasive species on the Gun Club’s property; in 2010, the Forest Stewardship Committee clear

cut 10 acres of invasives and sprayed 20 acres with organic pesticides. To date, 12 acres of the

Gun Club land has been clear cut, and four acres per year will be cleared for the next four years.

The 12 acres of clear cut are next to a swampy area, and he hopes this will create habitat for

woodcock, rabbit, deer, and turkey. There have also been three brush piles built on the land,

which he learned about during his participation at Coverts.

His own personal property is mostly forested wetlands. There are no uplands other than the small

area where the house sits. There is an area surrounding the house of approximately five acres that

is cleared. There are three maple species, oak, highbush blueberry, and azalea present. Most of

the trees are 30 to 40 years old or older. The main wildlife species on the land are deer, eastern

cottontail, fisher, gray squirrel, turkey, robin, swallow, and owl. He does not believe there is any

woodcock or New England cottontail present. Luckily, he has no known invasive species on his

land.

The previous owner of the property had developed an FMP; therefore, Marc Tremblay had

already marked the trees to remove for 20 acres of the property two years before the participant

moved in. This was really helpful in the development of his own FMP because much of the work

had already been done, and Marc Tremblay was done with the new FMP a week or so after

revisiting the property. His FMP states that he must maintain and build trails, plant trees and

remove the marked ones, and create snags. For many of the trees he removes, he replants a new

one that is a more beneficial species to his property. He has thinned 18 acres of his land, but has

not made any substantial clear cuts. He implements all the management practices on his own

without the help of a logger, although he does have some help from friends and family. Thus far,

he has managed 20 acres of his land and created 71 snags. He has built and maintained four trails

on the property. The previous owner tore up the crossing trail over the stream in the southwest

corner of the property, so he had to improve this trail. There is also a trail that runs straight back

from the house, one that runs to the southeast corner of the lot from the house, and one that runs

the full east length of the property. He just needs to build one more trail that runs the back length

of the parcel to satisfy his FMP. He has also created three brush piles on his property that he

hopes will enhance wildlife habitat.

He stated that he has spent approximately $30,000 of his own money on implementing his land

management practices. He spent $10,000 on a tractor that he bought specifically for the

management. He thinks he has spent the most money on equipment, fuel, and “hired” help. This

“hired” help is most often his friends and family who are mostly paid in getting their share of

wood for burning. He did receive funding from NRCS for the building and maintenance of the

trails. NRCS did not reimburse him for the purchase of his tractor and logging equipment such as

hooks. However, he explained that he would have done this forest management regardless of the

NRCS funding.


He has always had an interest in forestry due to his interests in fishing and hunting. On the URI-

NRCS survey, he reported that he enjoys observing wildlife, hunting and fishing, and identifying

plant and animal species on his property. He also enjoys walking the trails that he has built and

stacking wood. He has seen rabbit on his land and hopes that his management practices will

attract more. He also enjoys gardening and has a large garden on the lot. He initially discovered

Coverts through Paul Boisvert at a RIFCO field activity after he joined. He stated that his

Coverts attendance really sparked his interest in forest management and he began implementing

practices right away. His first project was creating brush piles. He also attended pollinator

workshops, which he found to be very helpful and he plans to plant 800 willow trees for bee

habitat on the Gun Club property. On his own land, he explained that it took about a year to

notice any recognizable differences after his implementation of land management practices. He

most certainly believes his management practices have helped to improve the wildlife habitat on

his parcel. The year after he began his management, he noticed there were two does and three

fawns using his land. This year he observed three does and five fawns. He believe the grass in

the front yard attract the deer. He retained most of the slash on his property, which was

recommended to him by Chris Modisette. He considers the retention of slash to have caused a

100% improvement on deer activity. He also said the turkey, squirrel, and fisher populations

have increased.

He has been able to sell products of their land, such as firewood. He charges $40 a truckload and

the buyer must come up to Foster to pick it up. He said he does not care about the money so

much, but wants the firewood to be used up. He plans on taking up maple sugaring next year, as

well. However, he believes this will mostly be for personal use and for gifts. The year before he

moved in, the previous owner harvested witch hazel. He has also considered doing this in the

future.

Fortunately, he has not received any negative feedback from his neighbors concerning his land

management practices. In fact, one of his neighbors has since registered as a certified tree farm

and has attended Coverts. Another one of his neighbors has shown interest in Coverts and forest

management. He also believes that his practices have influenced his son to get involved with

management. His son owns 100 acres in Vermont and has already registered for tree farm

certification. He did not have a hard time promoting land management at the Gun Club either.

The president is very supportive, and there has since been high interest in the Gun Club

programs. There are now waiting lists for the programs. He spreads the word about the benefits

of land management by talking to anyone he knows with ten acres or more. He also spreads the

word at work and through the Gun Club. He now prepares a monthly report for the Gun Club

regarding land management.

He had a great experience while attending Coverts in 2008. He found it very helpful to be able to

pick the brains of the speakers and learning from the other participants. He really enjoyed the

forestry field activity held at Great Swamp Management Area led by Brian Tefft. He also liked

the presentations on the ruffed grouse and its habitat. He stated that he would not have been able

to do the extent of forest management that he has done without the education of Coverts because

he now knows who to contact when he needs help. He did not find any of the aspects of Coverts

to be unhelpful. He did not think the program was too specific on woodcock and ESH. However,

he did find it rather surprising that the program was held at the W. Alton Jones campus and URI


does not participate in any land management for the benefit of this campus. He believes the

University should be taking the lead in promoting and implementing forest management

practices.

The most difficult aspect of the actual implementation of the practices was finding the time to do

it. Also, he was not quite sure what he was doing initially and he thinks Coverts made this much

easier for him. He has encountered some challenges with the RIDEM. He stated that he would

like to build a pond on his property to enhance wood duck habitat, but the RIDEM did not allow

this. His neighbor did build a pond and received some trouble from RIDEM for doing so. He was

glad that he could mostly deal with NRCS regarding his land management practices so he did not

have to get involved with RIDEM. Overall, the most rewarding aspects of land management for

him is knowing that he is doing the right thing and doing what he can to bring nature back. He

understands that there is a great deal of mature forest in the state and more immature forest needs

to be created. He also likes to do what he can to help with the energy crisis the world is facing.

Participant 4

I visited the property and interviewed Participant 4 in Foster, RI on a parcel of 48 acres on 28

October 2011. The property, which falls within the Ponaganset Reservoir watershed, is a

Certified Tree Farm and the participant uses a large wood burning furnace to heat his house. The

property is a unique situation because three of the owners of surrounding properties also attended

Coverts and practice land management. There is approximately 170 acres with four parcels in

this area. One of the neighbors cleared a seven acre meadow four years ago, which he uses to

train hunting dogs, as well as two to three acres in another area of his property, and three finger

cuts into the seven acre meadow for the enhancement of ESH. The undisrupted habitat created by

these four families is more ideal for improving wildlife habitat and one of the main goals of

forest management.

He is not yet sure what will come of their property in the future. He would like to keep it in the

family, but believes it would be hard for his family to afford. He said he was not prone to selling

the land to a land trust, but he is interested in selling the constructions rights to Providence

Water. Perhaps this would allow the property to not be developed. He does enjoy using the

property for various activities, like observing wildlife, and identifying plant and animal species.

His grandchildren also play on the land quite often.

He does not have educational or professional experience in biology or environmental sciences,

but have a strong interest in the both. After retiring from teaching, he did some contracting work

before beginning work for RIFCO. He was a board member of the Rhode Island Association of

Conservation Commissions (RIACC), and is now a director of the Northern Rhode Island

Conservation District (NRICD).

There are a variety of plant and tree species on the property. The main tree species are pine,

maple, white oak, red oak, scarlet oak, and birch. He has also planted Christmas trees on the

property. There is witch hazel, spirea, and inkberry present on the parcel. The main wildlife

species present are fox, deer, coyote, fisher cat, great horned owl, nuthatch, red-bellied

woodpecker, blue bird, and cardinal. However, he believes there is no woodcock or other early


successional species present on his land. He stated that there is approximately 15 acres of

wetlands on the property and the rest is forested upland. There is a small stream that runs through

the parcel, which is the lowest point of the wetlands and is very rocky. There are no known

invasive species on the property, which he said he was very happy about. However, his

neighbors to the east have a young, open field which makes him apprehensive about invasives

moving in.

He established an FMP with the RIDEM Open Space Program. Marc Tremblay was hired as the

forester and it took approximately three weeks to create the FMP at a cost of $700. He has a

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) contract with NRCS, which accepted his RIDEM

FMP. Under this contract to receive reimbursement, he was required to create snags, trails and

landings, and perform a TSI. The family did receive financial help from NRCS for these

activities, and he stated that it is hard to say how much was not reimbursed, but he believes it to

be a small amount. Despite hiring a commercial logging company soon after purchasing the land,

he performs most of the management activities on his own. He practices girdling on unhealthy

and unwanted individuals where he removes the bark of a tree, which then causes the tree to die.

He has also created 110 snags to enhance wildlife habitat. He reported that performing

management practices was much harder in the wetland areas of his property. He pulls the timber

in the wet season then waits until winter to remove it, and he believes he had to handle each tree

in this area at least four different times to remove it. He also stated that he would not go as deep

into the wetlands on his property to implement management activities if he had the chance to do

it again. He said he would have taken his management implementation slower if he were to do it

again because now his management plan is completed.

He hired a commercial logging company soon after he and his family moved into the property.

He hired this particular company under Marc Tremblay’s recommendation. The logging

company was present on his land for about three months and cleared approximately 30 acres of

the land. He did not have to pay the logging company because it would make money off the

timber that was harvested from his land. However, he said he did not have the best experience

with the logger. The logger was eventually subcontracted by someone else and the logger began

working two jobs. Therefore, the logger did not have full attention on the property and his

performance slipped. After this experience with a logging company, he decided to perform the

management activities on his own. He has also created a half-acre clear cut in the uplands of his

property, and a quarter-acre clear cut abutting his neighbor’s seven acre clear cut. He uses a

winch to pull timber, but has no heavy equipment.

He was able to notice recognizable differences on their land after implementing forest

management practices almost immediately. He stated that within a week of performing a TSI in

his half-acre clear cut, different wildlife species started moving in. He noticed more wild turkey,

buzzard, and chipmunks. He believes the small wildlife species, like chipmunk, eat his garden.

He also noticed an increase in the amount of raptors present, such as red-tailed hawk and great

horned owl. He stated that he would retain more slash in future management activities because

he believes it reduces deer browsing. He has been able to make small income off their property

since management implementation. He received $7,000 from the commercial logging company

for their valuable timber, and also harvests and sells witch hazel for $300 a ton. He also stated


that they were able to burn the wood off their clear cuts for three years, which is quite helpful

since they have a wood furnace.

He first became interested in land management through Marc Tremblay and his RIFCO

membership. After the RIRC&D received the grant to create the Coverts Program, Chris

Modisette asked him to be a part of it because Chris wanted someone with RIFCO experience.

Therefore, he has been involved with the Coverts Program since 2008. He tries to attend as many

environmental-education programs as he can, like the Land and Water Conservation Summit. He

also stated that there has been a boom in business and the NRICD has been getting much more

work.

Luckily, he and his family have not received negative feedback from any of their surrounding

neighbors regarding their land management practices. However, he does believe that several

houses are being built in the area, which makes him worry about creating an opening to be used

as a viewing corridor. He also believes there are people coming onto his land without permission

and hunting deer. He does allow a few personal friends to hunt on his property, but some people

are now taking advantage of the increased wildlife on his land. Fortunately, many of his

neighbors do practice their own forest management. He believes the best way to spread the word

about land management and the Coverts Program is to consistently advertise. He thinks emails

should be sent out to the same people with ten or more acres over and over. He also stated he

thought radio and TV advertisement should be used, and to advertise at land trust meetings. He

stated that perhaps a bigger and different venue should be used to host the program because the

URI W. Alton Jones campus does not practice any land management, which could be a poor

example to the participants.

He believes the Coverts Program is so helpful in implementing forest management practices

because the program puts into perspective how management can really help wildlife. However,

he believes it is unhelpful in the fact that there is so much information presented in such a short

time. He also believes the program should be broader, and not focus on woodcock and ESH as

much. He thinks the program should educate the participants on all different types of habitats. He

stated that the most rewarding aspects of implementing his land management practices are

enjoying his property and showing visitors the land. He also enjoys the quietness of the area. One

of the most difficult aspects of implementing the land management practices is the fact that it is

time consuming. He believes it could be daunting for people if they did not know how to use

heavy equipment or they were unsure on how to implement a practice. He also said it is often

expensive to implement management activities. He is weary of hiring workers to help out

because it is expensive and you never know what you are going to get. He thinks many people

are often scared off by the federal government and are nervous about working with such

programs, like NRCS.

Participant 5

I interviewed and visited the property of Participant 5 in Richmond, Rhode Island on 8

November 2011. He bought the parcel in 1989. He stated that the house on the property was built

in the 1780s. There is a stone dam in the brook on the eastern border of the property, several

stone walls and a root cellar. He reported that there was logging on this land in the 1950s. There


is a golf course to the west and a cattle farm to the east of his property. He said he would hate to

see the land developed, and is interested in selling the developing rights to a land trust or other

sort of program in the future.

He does not have an educational background in biology or environmental sciences, but his wife

is a retired environmental lawyer who was involved in providing low-cost legal assistance to

fight local environmental problems and to advocate environmental improvement in New York

City. The couple is involved with the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association (WPWA) and the

Richmond Land Trust. They are also work with TNC, the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, and

RIFCO.

He and his family utilize this large property for many outdoor activities. According to the URI-

NRCS survey, he enjoys observing wildlife, identifying species, and hunting. He with his family

members and friends hunt deer on the parcel, and may start hunting wild turkey in the near

future. He and his wife also enjoy gardening and harvesting maple syrup. They also like walking

their dogs and other passive recreational activities. The family also uses the property as a source

of firewood. He stated that he would be interested in logging some of the trees on his property

and that he would hire a logger, but the price of wood is not high enough, in his opinion, at this

point.

He characterized his property as mostly forested uplands with small patches of wetlands. As

stated above, the property is bordered by a stream to the east, which is also a very rocky area.

There is also a seasonal stream that runs though the center of the property November through

May and a small pond present. The forested uplands can be classified as mixed hardwood with

species such as white pine, pitch pine, oak, holly, white ash, aspen, gray birch, cedar, red maple,

hemlock, and sugar maple. Mammal species present on the property include deer, raccoon, fox,

coyote, squirrel, chipmunks, voles, bobcat, opossum, fisher cat, and bat. Bird species include

mourning dove, robin, woodpecker, jay, cardinal, meadowlark, hummingbird, barn owl, cat bird,

and great blue heron. Although there are possible areas of ESH on the land, he does not believe

that there are any woodcock present. There are several invasive species occupying the property

such as wild turkey, winged euonymus, barberry, and autumn olive.

He hired Marc Tremblay in 2008 and it took Marc a couple months to create the FMP. However,

they waited on NRCS for approximately a year to approve the FMP. They were unable to receive

financial help from NRCS until the FMP was approved. After approval, he began working on his

first clear cut in 2009. To date, he has completed a three acre clear cut on the lower east side of

the property that is coupled with a 22 acre thinning up the east side. He has also completed a five

acre clear cut in the back of the property and a 10 acre thinning in the mid-west area of the

parcel. He built brush piles in the clear cut areas. There is also a large mowed field directly to the

east of the house. He said he would like to improve the trail system on the property, as well. He

has done all the tree removal in the clear cuts and thinned areas on his own. However, he

recommends hiring someone if trees are being removed for any reason other than firewood use.

He thinks thinning can be done on your own.

He was instantly able to recognize differences on his land after creating the clear cuts. However,

it took a couple years to notice any differences in the thinned and mowed areas. He said that


wildlife habitat has definitely improved and increased. He sees deer activity everywhere in the

clear cuts and the mowed field is a wildlife magnet, especially for bird species. He has also seen

mallards and wood ducks in his seasonal pond. He stated that the wildlife present on his property

rotates over the years. Some years certain species will be present, but other years they will not

be. He has not seen blue birds on the property in the last few years. He said he would retain more

slash next time he performed any management activities because he believes the slash keeps the

deer away and provides cover to smaller animals. He has not attempted any management in the

wetland areas of the property, but he has left a border of trees along the wetland edges. The

family has not made much profit off the resources on their land. They have sold a few loads of

firewood here and there, and may try to sell their maple syrup in the future.

He originally became interested in forest management due to the combination of a tax deduction

and the idea of a healthy forest. He initially heard about the Coverts program through RIFCO

and attended in April of 2010. He spreads the word about land management through word of

mouth and by simply talking to people. He stated that the advertisement for Coverts is pushed

towards RIFCO and NRCS members who already know the program exists; he believes other

organizations should be involved to reach people who are unaware of the program. He thinks the

Coverts marketing needs to improve and other organizations should advertise the program, like

the Audubon Society, TNC, land trusts, and farm organizations. He believes many land owners

do not understand that land management can enhance the land for wildlife and people need to be

educated on this. He did not receive any negative feedback from their neighbors during their

implementation and some of their neighbors even became interested in the land management. He

stated that some of his neighbors have contacted Marc Tremblay.

The most helpful aspects of the Coverts program for him were learning about forest management

and the different types of thinning, like clear cuts versus thinning. It was also really helpful to

learn about the different types of habitats that attract different types of wildlife. He really

enjoyed the woodcock catching activity. To improve the Coverts program, he believes more

specific examples of participants’ forest management should be presented. He also suggested

doing the landowner property visit at the beginning of the program rather than at the end because

he thinks it is better to see the management on the ground than to hear about it in a classroom.

He said the most difficult aspects of implementing the land management practices were the

daunting amount of work and cutting down the trees. However, he had a much more rewarding

experience than a difficult one. He stated the most rewarding aspects to be getting to know

fellow landowners and hearing about their own management experiences on their property. He

also really enjoyed learning about forestry management and felt that his horizon was really

broadened. He stated that Mr. Tremblay was really easy to work with, and that he received a lot

of support from Tom Abbott from RIDEM and Chris Modisette from NRCS.

4. Conclusions

Each participant bought their property, it was not inherited, and the average occupation of the

properties was 9.7 years. The outliers here are Participant 3 with only six months of occupation

and Participant 5 with 22 years of occupation. The future plans for the properties are fairly

similar. Two participants plan to keep their properties in the family, and the other three

participants plan to sell to a land trust or sell the construction rights so the property cannot be


developed. All five participants would like to see the woodlots preserved and would hate to see

them developed.

Overall, the participants did not have educational backgrounds in biology or environmental

sciences, with the exception of Participant 1 who has a M.S. in biology. They also did not have

career backgrounds in environmental science, except for Participants 1 and 5. This most likely

reflects the general population of forest landowners in Rhode Island. It is most likely that the

population does not have educational or professional backgrounds in environmental sciences,

which could be important to remember while trying to recruit participants for future Coverts

programs. Also, four of the five participants were retired; Participant 1 is the only who is not

retired. This is important simply because the participants have more time to devote to land

management. Maintaining a career while trying to implement forest management practices would

be quite difficult because it takes tremendous time and effort. These four participants have the

advantage of spare time to practice land management.

All five of the participants were also involved in other “environmental-action” programs. These

programs ranged from land trusts to RIFCO to the South County Rod and Gun Club to the

Audubon Society. This is notable because these programs are an excellent way to spread the

word about the Coverts program and forest management. The participants are able to share their

experiences through multiple venues which, in turn, will hopefully get more landowners

involved in Coverts or land management. The participants are also able to share their knowledge

of forest management with other organizations. For example, Participant 3 uses the knowledge

he learned from Coverts to help the South County Rod and Gun Club manage its 475 acres for

improved wildlife habitat. It is clear that each participant has a strong interest in environmental

protection. However, this result may be important in trying to extend Coverts advertisement to

individuals outside of these environmental groups. There are most certainly many woodlot

owners who do not participate in any of these programs; therefore, it may be worth extending

advertisement to focus on this population of landowners.

The plant and wildlife species present on each participant’s property were similar. The majority

of tree species included maples, oaks, pines, aspen, and birch. Shrub species included highbush

blueberry, witch hazel, arrow wood, winterberry, and azalea. Wildlife species most commonly

found included deer, wild turkey, coyote, raccoon, opossum, fisher cat, squirrel, fox, owl,

woodpecker, and hawk. Two of the five participants had invasive species present on their

property. The invasive species included bittersweet, multiflora rose, barberry, wintercreeper,

porcelain berry, winged euonymus, and autumn olive. These two participants have tried

eradicating the invasives, but it is difficult due to the resilience and adaptability of invasive

species. Participant 1 even stated the removal of invasives as one of the most challenging aspects

on her land management experiences.

Four of the participants established FMPs through the help of Marc Tremblay and NRCS.

Participant 1 did not have enough acreage to qualify for a NRCS FMP, but she created her own

management plan. All five participants received financial support from NRCS, even Participant 1

who was able to receive reimbursement through WHIP. It is interesting to note that three of the

five participants said that they would have continued land management practices without the

NRCS reimbursement. Participant 1 and 2 stated that they would probably not have continued


with forest management if they had not received reimbursement, which is interesting because

they have the smallest woodlots which, in theory, would require the least amount of financial aid.

However, it is difficult to say why the participants would have or would not have continued

without NRCS financial aid. The amount of personal funds invested ranged from $1,000 to

$30,000 that was not reimbursed. However, I did not receive specific numbers from Participant 4

or Participant 5. Several of the participants stated that the most expensive items were equipment,

which is not reimbursed by NRCS.

Since the Coverts program focuses such a large amount of time on ESH, it is important to discuss

the participants’ experiences with ESH. Every participant has the knowledge and skills after

attending Coverts to create ESH on their property through establishing substantial clear cuts.

However, only two of the participants created large forest openings on their property. Participant

5 created a three acre and a five acre clear cut, which is quite conservative especially since he

owns 168 acres. Larger clear cuts of at least ten acres would most likely serve as better ESH.

Participant 4 had 30 acres cleared by a logger when he moved in six years ago, and has only

created a half-acre and quarter-acre clear cut since. All of the participants have performed

thinning, but this will not necessarily create ESH. Participant 2 does have a field that he keeps

mowed that may be an area of ESH. It is important to note that Participant 1 and Participant 3

stated that they had created forest openings on the URI-NRCS survey; Participant 1 stated she

had created a one acre opening and Participant 3 created an 18 acre opening. However, after

further investigation, Participant 1 and Participant 3 meant that they had thinned one acre and 18

acres, respectively. Perhaps one of the options on the survey for that question should have been

thinned forest with the objective of improving wildlife habitat. None of the participants have

encountered American woodcock on their property, but Participant 2 stated he has seen New

England cottontail on his land. Therefore, I am able to conclude that there are three instances of

possible ESH on the properties of Participants 2, 4 and 5. However, I believe further

investigation on these properties should be performed to confirm this.

All of the participants have been able to notice recognizable differences on their property after

implementing forest management practices. All five stated that the wildlife habitat has improved

and increased on their property. The participants experienced increases in frog, hawk,

woodpecker, bat, deer, turkey, and other populations. The length of time to notice any

differences varied from as quickly as a week to as long as two to three years. It appears that the

clear cuts immediately improve wildlife habitat while the thinned areas take at least a year to

show any noticeable differences in wildlife habitat.

Overall, all of the participants had an excellent experience with the Coverts program and forest

management. Most of the participants had established an FMP before attending Coverts, but

were really able to immerse themselves in the management after attending Coverts. In general,

the participants believed that the Coverts program gave them the knowledge and the skill set to

perform management activities that they did not have beforehand. All five participants had great

things to say about the Coverts program. The most helpful aspects of the program for these five

participants were meeting other landowners with the same passions, receiving contact

information to many different resources and reference materials, the follow-up workshops,

visiting other woodlots, learning how management can really help improve wildlife habitats, and

learning about different management techniques. The participants did not have much to say in


terms of negatives of the Coverts program, but some suggested there should be more specific

examples of past participants’ land management experiences, there was too much information all

at once, and it should expand its focus to other species and habitats rather than just American

woodcock and ESH. Also, some of the participants commented on the fact that the program is

held at the URI W. Alton Jones campus, but the campus does not practice any sort of forest or

wildlife management. Participant 1 thought it would be a great idea to open the program up to

landowners with smaller acreages because this represents the typical landowner in Rhode Island.

From the results of the URI-NRCS study and my case studies, it is obvious that the RI Coverts

Project has been influential in motivating private landowners to practice forest management

activities with the objective of improving wildlife habitat. Of course there are areas the program

could improve in, like perhaps broadening the focus to include other typical habitats present in

RI and presenting specific examples of landowners’ land management schemes. The program

could also improve its advertisement to get more typical landowners involved. However, it is

clear that the program has made successful contributions to expanding wildlife habitat in Rhode

Island, and will continue to do so while the program exists.

5. References

Buffum, B., and C. Modisette. 2011. Mobilizing private landowners to manage forests

for wildlife habitat - the experience of the Rhode Island Coverts Program.

Kingston, Rhode Island: Department of Natural Resources Science, University of

Rhode Island.

Dessecker, D.R., and D.G. McAuley. 2001. Importance of early successional habitat to

ruffed grouse and American woodcock. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(2): 456-465.

Endrulat, E.G., S.R. McWilliams, and B.C. Tefft. 2005. Habitat selection and home range

size of ruffed grouse in Rhode Island. Northeastern Naturalist, 12(4): 411-424.

Gobster, P.H. 2001. Human dimensions of early successional landscapes in the eastern

United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(2): 474-482.

RGS (Ruffed Grouse Society). "Our Projects Involve Public and Private Habitat

Programs." Our Projects. Web. 31 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/our-projects>.

Riitters, K.H., J.D. Wickham, R.V. O’Neill, K.B. Jones, E.R. Smith, J.W. Coulston, T.G.

Wade, and J.H. Smith. 2002. Fragmentation of continental United States forests.

Ecosystems, 5(8): 815-822.

RIRC&D (Rhode Island Resource Conservation and Development Council). "RI Coverts

Project Introduction." RIRC&D. Web. 31 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.rircd.org/covertsprojectintroduction.htm>.

Trani, M.K., R.T. Brooks, T.L. Schmidt, V.A. Rudis, and C.M. Gabbard. 2001. Patterns

and trends of early successional forests in the eastern United States. Wildlife

Society Bulletin, 29(2): 413-424.

Widmann, R.H. 2002. Trends in Rhode Island forests: A half-century of change. NE-

INF-144-02. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research

Station, Newtown Square, PA.


Appendix I. Scientific Names of Species Mentioned

Common Name Scientific Name Alpaca Vicugna pacos American elm Ulmus americana American woodcock Scolopax minor Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum Aspen Populus spp. Azalea Rhododendron spp. Barberry Berberis spp. Barn owl Tyto alba Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Bittersweet Celastrus scandens Black racer snake Coluber constrictor Bluebird Sialia sialis Bobcat Lynx rufus Bramble Rubus spp. Brier Smilax spp. Burning bush Euonymus alatus Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Cherry Prunus spp. Chipmunk Tamias striatus Coyote Canis latrans Easter egg chicken Araucana spp. Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Elderberry Sambucus spp. Fisher Martes pennanti Fox Vulpes spp. Goat Capra aegagrus hircus Gray birch Betula populifolia Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Great blue heron Ardea herodias Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Hemlock Tsuga spp. Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Holly Ilex spp. Inkberry Ilex glabra Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Llama Lama glama Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Meadowlark Sturnella spp. Moss Sphagnum spp. Mouse Mus musculus Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora New England cottontail Sylvilagus transitionalis


Common Name Scientific Name Norway maple Acer platanoides Nuthatch Sitta spp. Opossum Didelphis virginiana Pitch pine Pinus rigida Porcelain-berry Ampelopsis brevipedunculata Raccoon Procyon lotor Red maple Acer rubrum Red oak Quercus rubra Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red twig dogwood Cornus sericea Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Robin Turdus migratorius Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus Scarlet oak Quercus coccinea Shiitake mushroom Lentinula edodes Silver maple Acer saccharinum Skunk Mephitis mephitis Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus Spirea Spiraea spp. Vole Microtus spp. Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Walnut Juglans spp. White ash Fraxinus americana White pine Pinus strobus White oak Quercus alba White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Willow Salix spp. Winterberry Ilex verticillata Wintercreeper Euonymus fortunei Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana Wood duck Aix sponsa Woodchuck Marmota monax


Appendix II. Questions asked during interviews

How long have you lived on the property? How was the property acquired? Bought or inherited? If

inherited, how long has this property been in your family? Do you know of any cultural/historical significance that your land holds? Do you plan to keep this property in the family? Sell? Donate to a land trust? Do you have any background in biology or environmental science? If so, from where and how many

years? If not, what is your profession? Do you participate in any other “environmental-action” programs in your community? (i.e. land trusts) You own approximately X acres, correct? Do you know how much of that is forested land? Meadow?

Scrub-shrub? Swamp/wetlands? Uplands? Farmland? Do you know the main species of trees/plants/shrubs/wildlife on your property? Do you know of any invasives on your land? If so, which species? From the survey, you stated you enjoy X. Are there any other activities you enjoy? Would the activities you did on your land BEFORE attending Coverts have provided enough education

for you to continue land management without attending Coverts? Did you attend any other environmental-education events before or after attending Coverts? Which ones?

Which were the most helpful? If not Coverts, what initially got you interested in land management? How long have you been

interested? How did you initially hear about the Coverts program? After attending Coverts, how long did it take to start moving forward with land management? How long did it take to establish a FMP? How much did it cost? Did you receive financial help from

NRCS? How much of your own money did you have to spend that was not reimbursed by NRCS? How much did it cost to hire a forester? How long did it take him/her to survey your land? Who did you

hire? How much did it cost to hire a logger? How long did it take? Who did you hire? How many acres have you cleared? Did wildlife habitat improve/increase? How long did it take to notice any recognizable differences on your land after implementing land

management practices? Did the retention of slash cause any noticeable differences? Do you have wetlands on your property? Have you tried to manage any of the wetlands on your

property? What and how did you do that? Did you find this to be more difficult than managing other

parts of your property? Have you ever sold any products off your land? How much did you make? Have you continued to sell

timber? Has it increased since implementation? What aspects of Coverts did you find most helpful in implementing land management practices? What aspects of Coverts did you find least helpful? Did you receive any negative feedback when you cleared trees from your land from neighbors? How did

you deal with this? Have your neighbors shown any interest in also implementing land management practices? Do you think

your actions spurred this interest? How do you spread the word about the benefits of land management? Do you have any suggestions on

how to get more typical landowners involved in the program? What was the most difficult aspect of implementing land management practices? Do you think Coverts

made this any easier? Would you be interested in having the wildlife and/or plant life on your land surveyed? Overall, what has been the most rewarding aspect of implementing land management practices?


Do you have any photographs of your land before and/or after the implementation of land management

practices that you wouldn’t mind sharing? Would you mind if the results of this interview were presented at next year’s Coverts program in a

Powerpoint presentation?


Appendix III. Photographs of Participants’ Properties

Figure 2- Participant 1 Property

Forested 4-acre parcel.


Area of wetlands.



Girdling of maple tree on Participant 1 property.


Open field leading into forested areas on property.



Pile of slash from tree removal on Participant 2 property.


Thinned forest area on property.



Driveway on property heading away from residence.


Thinned forest area on property bordering neighbor’s clear cut.



Participant 4 and myself walking one of his trails.

Photos 2-8 taken by Danielle Birmingham.

Photos 9-10 taken by Bill Buffum.

The Influence of the Rhode Island Coverts Project: Five ...cels.uri.edu/docslink/forestry/Birmingham...

Documents

Transcript of The Influence of the Rhode Island Coverts Project: Five ...cels.uri.edu/docslink/forestry/Birmingham...